Monday, July 12, 2010

A friend of mine pointed out to me that in his book on Christian Ethics, Norman Geisler seems to call lying a moral and ethical issue (link to sample of book). On page 19, for example, lying is provided as example of an ethical issue which is decided by moral laws. So, it's not clear how Norman Geisler can justify his apparent belief now that the issue of a preacher allegedly lying is not a moral issue.

In our culture the political classes have made "misspeaking" into a euphemism for lying. Why evangelicals feel it is okay to take a cue from politicians shows their lack of fidelity to Christian ethics. It stretches credulity to the limit to ask us to believe that Caner was just merely mistaken about his own past. What Caner did is the equivalent of resume enhancement, i.e., he lied.

You wrote: "Here is a thought for you and your premise in the attack on Caner and Geisler:"

Criticism is not attack. I would like to see repentance from Caner, not any harm to him. I was one of the first people to rejoice that Caner did not lose his job. I don't consider myself to be attacking Dr. Caner, but to be attempting to bring Dr. Caner to a state of conviction and repentance. I still have hope that God will restore Caner.

You wrote: "Are you saying that misspeaking is lying? If the intent was NOT to give false information and yet the information was false - it is lying or misspeaking."

Not every incorrect statement is a lie. I don't think anyone in this dialog has ever said that. There are accidental misstatements, and there are intentional misstatements. Intentional misstatements normally are lies - an exception would be a joke, or something like that. I can't believe that these concepts are something new to you - and you shouldn't think that these are new to me.

You wrote: "The problem in this scenario as you present it is that you have already determined the intent as if you knew and do know the heart. That is a huge issue in my book."

I can understand that. I hope you will recognize that I have been more careful than some of Dr. Caner's critics in what I have said about Dr. Caner's intent. You have not seen me, for example, say that Ergun Caner is a "pathological liar," have you?

But lying is a charge that many folks are bringing against Dr. Caner. It's one thing for folks to remain silent, but it is not right for someone like Geisler to claim that the issue is not a moral issue.

Even if somehow Geisler thinks Caner never intentionally misled anyone, the charges are charges of immoral behavior - they are serious charges, even if they are scurrilous charges. Or do you agree with what Dr. Geisler has said?

As for the issue of intent, how do we decide that? Do we just take Dr. Caner's word for it? Or do we consider how often, what kind, how severe, and how many misstatements have been made?

You wrote: "If a person lies to gain - yes it is morally wrong. If a person misspeaks and has no intent on deceiving, it is not morally wrong but careless and in need of more attention to details."

Let me give you a couple of examples. If I give, as my birthplace, the bigger town next next to the one I was born in - that's a slight imprecision, perhaps, but there is no intent to deceive, in all likelihood. If, on the other hand, I give out a location a thousand miles away, the severity of the error makes it harder for folks to accept the idea that this was just an innocent mistake.

Likewise, if I once said I grew up in place X where I did not grow up, maybe I just forgot to clarify that I was speaking hypothetically - but if I make the same claim multiple times, it starts to look like I'm intentionally misleading people, doesn't it?

And again, if I combine saying I was born in the distant place with the claim to have grown up in the distant place, it starts to look less and less like an accidental misstatement, doesn't it?

Perhaps, Tim, you and I just think differently. I am concerned about a lot of the statements I have heard, and you seem less worried by them.

I know that some of my friends disagree, but I think Dr. Caner had mostly good intentions in what he was doing. I think I've said that a few times on my blog.

I do think, though, that it is a little hard to believe the claim that he never intentionally misled anyone. That's my opinion. I think he never meant to hurt anyone with any of his misstatements. That's also my opinion.

Tim G said: If a person lies to gain - yes it is morally wrong. If a person misspeaks and has no intent on deceiving, it is not morally wrong but careless and in need of more attention to details.

I'm with Tim on this one; I mean if one examines the facts the alleged "Caner Embellishments Theory" just doesn't hold water.

After all it's not as if he has personally benefitted financially, professionally, or positionally from assuming a pseudo-jihadist persona within the theologically shallow, generally biblically ignorant, post-9/11 pathologically Islamophobic, cult-of-personality-esque SBC or anything, right?

I mean, wouldn't there need to be a motive or motives for attempting to pull off a confidence scam such as acquiring a cushy, high-visibility, well-paying job at a major seminary, or shilling ignorant Muslim stereotypes for pay at churches and conferences, or receiving offers to appear on television and radio programs for hire with well-respected Christian leaders, or obtaining potentially lucrative book deals?

Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me personally. Common sense and Occam's razor point to the controversy as being a Muslim-Calvinist conspiracy to discredit Caner.

With all due respect, intentionally "misspeaking" is a pretty and flowery way of saying "lying". He knew when he spoke those words that they were not true. Who knows more than he whether or not he grew up here or there, or did this or that?

I wanted nothing more than for this professing man of God to be found at confusing the facts, of what have you. But clearly, he did not just "misspeak," he lied.

Honestly, how can someone unintentionally "misspeak" about where he was born? If I told TurretinFan I was born in England but told you I was born in Canada, how can that be anything but a lie to either you, to TF, or to both of you? And if I do this over and over again with different people, well, that speaks to intent does it not?

Come on. Try to think rationally. Have you ever made a "mistake" multiple times when telling someone where you were born or where you were raised?

I believe I have something of an understanding of Ergun Caner. While I have never met the man but I grew up in a small town and I have met many like him. The fisherman who tells of the huge fish he caught. The hunter who tells five different stories of how he got the same elk. The person who loves a good story and feels he needs to embellish it to make it better. In our modern age of fuzzy morals it is easy to try to excuse this kind of good-natured liar, like excusing two fornicators because they feel they are really in love. But the Word of God would call us away from this kind of shades of gray type ethic to an absolute standard where lying is still lying. And if you believe a man can repeatedly absentmindedly forget what country he grew up in, you are kidding yourself.

I did not say he intentionally misspoke. That is my point. Geisler is stating the same thing - there was no intention to mislead anyone. Never.

If this were the case, his books would have also had the same issues. They did not.

I will add this - I have said on many occasions that I grew up with farming and cattle. Did I live on a farm and ranch - no in both cases. But I worked with cattle near my home and my grandparents did have a farm. Was I lying? No.

I have also stated that I was born in town X and yet the hospital (thus my actual place of birth)was located in town Y. Was I lying? NO!

Caner did not create a story to gain anything! If one says that is the case - prove it! Do you know his heart? Do you have verifiable proof of this scenario?

He did not enhance his resume. He did not create anything that was not there. He interchanged dates and he spoke as many have from a life full of all the places and trips etc..

To claim he lied is to claim he made up parts of his life. He did not! He gave wrong dates.

I understand your description of your position, but I can't see how you can think that - for example - the 1969 arrival date versus 1978 arrival date is just carelessness.

I could see that with saying November 4, 1982, instead of November 4, 1981, or something like that. There, the difference is not so huge. But how could the 1978 date (or the 1969 date) just be carelessness, depending on which you think is correct?

"Are you saying that misspeaking is lying? If the intent was NOT to give false information and yet the information was false - it is lying or misspeaking."

There are things that a man can misstate, and things that he can't–especially when we're dealing, not with an isolated utterance, but a pattern.

Unless Caner is suffering from senile dementia, he can't repeatedly misstate where he was born, where he grew up, whether or not he trained to be a suicide bomber, &c.

Ironically, you're using a dishonest argument to defend a dishonest man.

"The problem in this scenario as you present it is that you have already determined the intent as if you knew and do know the heart. That is a huge issue in my book."

How is that a "huge issue"? By that standard, we could never convict a defiant defendant of a crime. As long as the accused pleaded innocent, we couldn't conclude that he was lying, despite compelling evidence to the contrary, unless we could read his mind.

Likewise, by your standard, it would be okay to let your cub scouts go camping with a Scout Leader who's a convicted pedophile, for as long as he denies the charge, it would be wrong to assume he's lying about his past.

The fact that you and others go to such lengths to defend Caner illustrates the fact that, for better or worse, fans and followers often take after their leaders or idols.

"He did not enhance his resume. He did not create anything that was not there."

In a fallen world, there's a symbiotic relationship between deceivers and self-deceivers. Tim graphically illustrates the Biblical truth that some men have an insatiable appetite for self-deception. They are what makes false teachers possible.

The fact that Tim calls himself a pastor and "church strategist" is a disgrace.

WHAT IS THE DISCONNECT HERE.I'll assume Tim G honestly believes what he is writing. How can he and other write what they do in light of ALL the countless number of tube videos and written words from Caners own mouth. Can Tim G. give a clear defense against a few specific examples of where Caner Lied about his past, for example when he came to America.

In thousands of sermons and speaking engagements, only a few times do you find the misstatements. In none of his books etc..

Geisler also points out that in the Swedish culture, the place of birth of one's father is considered to be the nationality of the children. Proof, he was taken to Turkey to get his turkey citizenship. Now, one might also realize that a place of residency must have been established also for this to occur. It did. So did he reside in Turkey - yes.

By your standard, the allegation of perjury is self-refuting. By your standard, you can't rightly accuse someone of perjury unless you can read his mind. For he can't bear false witness unless he intends to bear false witness, and only God can discern his intentions.

"Geisler also points out that in the Swedish culture, the place of birth of one's father is considered to be the nationality of the children."

Even if that were true, Caner wasn't addressing Swedes, he was addressing Americans. That's not a cultural assumption in American society. And since Caner is thoroughly acculturated to American society, it would be duplicitous to say something that means one thing to the speaker, but something quite different to the target audience.

Dr. Geisler did not answer for Dr. Caner within any context. He just basically made claims. Yet, when examining Jehovah's Witness claims Geisler if very careful to point out the context and meanings of words.

Something else to consider is the way Ergun Caner has been so bold in his talks. How can he be taken seriously going forward in his talks when he boldly challenges others yet stays silent through all of this?

For example, irony lurks among Dr. Caner's own words and given his current non-response. In this talk (http://whygrr.com/Islam%20101.mp3) Caner speaks very boldly. Just listen to the first 10 minutes about how he calls people out by name and is all about truth, etc.

In another talk, "Mighty Men of Valor" he challenges his listeners to not wait to speak in the face of conflict. Not waiting for others to lead and or to wait for a announcement. And also being willing to speak up if your job is at stake.

The consistency also fades when considering his definition of debating in light of Liberty having a nationally known debate school.

I just wonder what the purposes were for all of these statements for the past nine years. In context of all of his talks the intent seems clear. It seems like he was trying to present a certain persona of himself.

If he wasn't trying to build a certain persona then what was his intent for all of his statements for the past nine years?

It is pointless for you to quote provisions from the OT penal code when you smother the law code with your unscriptural standard of evidence. By your lights, an OT judge could never convict a defendant, for he could never infer criminal intent. In that event, the OT law code would be unenforceable. A dead letter from the time the ink was dry on the parchment.

People are entitled to a *reasonable* presumption of innocence, not a *blanket* presumption of innocence. People can nullify any presumption of innocence by guilty actions.

That's demonstrably false. For instance, a man can intend to commit a crime without having a "clear thorough plan." Many burglars are bunglers. They don't think ahead. They don't have contingency plans. They act on the spur of the moment. Doesn't mean they lack criminal intent.

Coram,The Liberty Statement is what it is. I have no idea as to their not renewing his title as Dean. I can speculate but I was not there.

The same is true for their actions. Liberty had to do what Liberty felt appropriate for the situation.

Yet, the statement and action obviously verify that NO embellishment of a false life story was present or else he would have been fired.

Turritenfan,I have heard hundreds of Caners sermons. Literally. There is not found this supposed plan of defrauding.

As to dates etc., I can only attest to what I know about what I have written. I do know that in conversation with me, Caner never wanted the confusion to be overlooked and stated as he did in his statement and to students that he had gotten careless.

He is a passionate Preacher. No excuse. He needs to improve. Simple fact.

Tim said: The Liberty Statement is what it is. I have no idea as to their not renewing his title as Dean. I can speculate but I was not there.

The same is true for their actions. Liberty had to do what Liberty felt appropriate for the situation.

Yet, the statement and action obviously verify that NO embellishment of a false life story was present or else he would have been fired.

I find this to be a very curious and telling insight into your logic, Tim.

On the one hand you simply can't speculate as to why Liberty didn't renew Caner's job as Dean, nor can you guess as to what facts may have motivated their action, but you're absolutely certain that "NO embellishment of a false life story was present or else he would have been fired".

Do you think it's possible that emotional attachment to this situation has clouded your objectivity?

I hope you're right. Your explanation is the one I would like to believe, but as I listen to more and more of Dr. Caner's sermons, addresses, and interviews - my view and yours seem to be going in opposite directions.

I'll try to post a summary of my experience at some point, so you can see what I'm talking about.

Matt,To say what is based on fact is one thing. To try and get into the thoughts and hearts of others is another.

I have no idea as to your determined attacks in this area. I pray you treat your soon to be church members with more grace than you give others. I also pray even more that they treat you as their new Pastor with more grace than you give others.

If one removes the alleged misstatements from Caner's talks the rest of the statements would not make sense. This is why context is so important. Not only would the removal of such statements devoid the meaning of certain statements, but it would take away from the impact, IMO.

I find it hard to believe Caner does not think much about what he was going to say before he presents. He is an excellent story teller. His talks work together very well. He knows how to make people laugh and build a story into a climax. It all fits together.

Caner may be under authority, but as I pointed out in his "Mighty Men of Valor" talk he boldly challenges people not to sit back and wait. To not be afraid to lose their job, etc. How could I ever listen to someone so boldly tell me to act in a situation when they are unwilling to do so themselves? How?

Turritenfan,I have said from the beginning that if I saw anything that was proof of intent, I would say so and work to bring Caner to repentance.

Matt,One more thing. I have no emotional tie. I am passionate about people destroying the character of others for the simple reason of some crazy theological agenda. I also think that one needs to realize that any preacher in America could be found guilty if all were held to the standard that Caner's critics are holding him to.

I once said in a sermon: "David committed adultery with Uriah". Sometimes the mouth does not work!

How many times would Caner need to misstate the events surrounding his birthplace, childhood home, or timing of his move to the USA for you to conclude this is more than accidental misstatements?

3?5?10?

Surely birthplace, time of moving to the USA, and childhood home wouldn't be messed up frequently by any speaker. They'd be rare and less than little slips of the tongue such as claiming David slept with Uriah in a sermon since we're talking about a person's own life history.

"One more thing. I have no emotional tie. I am passionate about people destroying the character of others for the simple reason of some crazy theological agenda."

That seems to be a popular argument among Caner's fanboys. However, that argument obviously cuts both says. If Caner's opponents have a theological agenda, then, by converse logic, his supporters also have a theological agenda. So you discredit yourself in your effort to discredit others.

"I also think that one needs to realize that any preacher in America could be found guilty if all were held to the standard that Caner's critics are holding him to."

Well, you certainly have a low opinion of the Christian ministry. However, that explains a lot, for you're certainly living up to your low expectations.

I'm still baffled by LU's seeming complicity in a miscarriage of justice if one adopts your view of this matter.

If I'm understanding you correctly, "some people" [presumably Caner's critics] are "destroying the character of others" [presumably Caner] "for the simple reason of some crazy theological agenda" [presumably a Muslim-Calvinist conspiracy].

Yet in the midst of this LU demotes Caner, finding that he made "factual statements that are self-contradictory".

It seems something less than wild speculation to assume that LU's findings of fact during their official investigation into the Caner matter influenced their decision to demote Caner and issue a public statment that he made "factual statements that are self-contradictory".

How does this tie in with your view that Caner is a victim? Is LU also persecuting Caner?

You ask if *I* am saying someone should disregard their authority? I am relating to you what Ergun Caner has boldly preached to others.

In Might Men of Valor Dr. Caner said - True men of valor don't stand back and wait to see which side's winning. True men of valor come while David is still restricted. True men of valor rise up in the middle of the conflict. They don't wait for others to lead. They don't wait for the call to be ushered. They don't wait for something to be announced. If you and I are going to be that Kalil gaboor(?), I've we're going to be the men of valor that we're supposed to be, you and I have to distinguish ourselves as those who are willing to stand in the midst of crisis. That means it's at the cost of popularity, at the cost of prosperity, sometimes at the cost of prestige, certainly at the cost of power. Would you speak up if it meant you'd lose your job? Would you speak up if it meant scorn, ridicule, attack, would you speak up if nobody else paid attention? But would you speak up not because you can win, but because it's RIGHT? Do you know how rare that is?"

Maybe I'm misreading - but I think you may be talking past each other. I think Tim G. is suggesting that Caner has been instructed that he must not talk about the situation. Thus, for him to speak out would be for him to rebel against authority. I do confess, though, that I'm not sure that is what Tim G. is saying.

Matt,I think you are making leap here. I would also add that the fact they are keeping him says more to prove what they found than anything else. If they had found him to be a fraud, they would have fired him.

Mark,If your authorities tell you that you cannot speak - then you cannot speak or else you would fired. I think you are making something a point that does not relate. Caner is loyal and a person who lives under authority. If they say no speaking out - then he must be silent. For people to continue to decry his silence when it is clear from Liberty that NO ONE can speak, is another form of arrogance and agenda or people who do not understand living under authority.

If there is such an order from Liberty (I take it from your comments that there is, though I don't think you've explicitly said there is), I think Liberty is doing a number of folks there a disservice by imposing such a command on them while not making their command public. It make the folks look as though they are remaining silent without a good reason.

Tim said: I think you are making leap here. I would also add that the fact they are keeping him says more to prove what they found than anything else. If they had found him to be a fraud, they would have fired him.

You can think that, and it's not an implausible explanation; but it's at least equally plausible that LU's findings, while falling short of incriminating Caner as "a fraud", were nevertheless serious enough to remove him from his position as dean.

Given LU's prior reluctance, nay, defiant obstinance to even consider the matter, I'd say it's more than reasonable [even unavoidable] to conclude that they found enough troubling "factual statements that are self-contradictory" made by Caner to warrant action.

Perhaps their motives were tempered by grace, or perhaps their motives were influenced by denominational pressures, or perhaps their motives were affected by financial/enrollment considerations, but whatever the case the fact remains that Caner was demoted by LU after conducting an internal investigation into the allegations swirling around him.

I'm sorry that you don't like my question. I should have left Mr. Caner out of the question.

Assuming you are the same Tim who is a Pastor, let's say you have a new youth minister at your church and you have a written version of his personal history which you have read.

He's had the job for 6 months, and as part of his development you sit down one weekend to review the audio of his teachings to his class.

As you listen through his recordings that day, you hear him make claims about major life history events which broadly contradict the written record you have.

As you listen to all these messages, at what number of misstatements about his own major life history events do you begin to believe these misstatements are not accidental.

3? 5?10?

I'm sure it would be hard to find a specific number, but surely it's less than ten, right? Or perhaps not? In the above scenario, I probably get disappointed at 3, and really alarmed at 7. But I haven't had more than these few minutes to think through it. Perhaps in thinking through it the numbers will be a little less or more. I am not a Pastor and don't have experience evaluating candidates for a youth pastor role.

What about you? When in your marathon audio-review session would you begin to suspect that this youth pastor's misstatements are not accidental?

Turritenfan,I have argued the same about the Liberty action. I even argued that releasing the statement to a paper and not putting it on their own site was a bad move iMO.

Matt,All I can say is that I know they found nothing even close to a fraud event or events. Nothing even close. Why they did what they did is one they and only they know. I do know that caner is scheduled to speak at TR soon so your making an assumption once again weakens.

eric,Your hypothetical would require more hypothetical stuff revealed and thus it is still hypothetical. I do not play those games.

Since you won't answer a well-intentioned hypothetical, I'll try a different way of phrasing a question.

My goal here is to understand what quantity of accidental misstatements by Mr. Caner would cause you to begin doubting whether they are accidental or not.

Certainly this is something you can come up with because you seem to think a "couple" misstatements about one narrow fact would not be a concern when you wrote: "In only a couple of situations did Caner use the date of his citizenship in place of the date of coming to America."

So if TurretinFan were to show five misstatements (those which contradict the written record in 'Unveiling Islam' or court records) by Mr. Caner on: birthplace, countries of residence in his childhood, or the year he moved to the USA (with a +/- 1 year grace date range), would you begin to doubt whether these were accidents?

How about 7? Maybe 10? Would it take 12?

I have no idea how many examples are extant. Lots of energy has been expended on Mr. Caner's mishandling of Arabic, his claims of wearing certain clothes, conversion date, etc. So for all I know Mr. Caner has very rarely claimed anything beyond being born in Sweden and moving to Ohio at a young age.

I did not personally understand Liberty's statement to mean that Mr. Caner is personally prohibited from speaking on this matter, only that the leadership at Liberty U would no longer be speaking to this matter. If I am incorrect in this, I humbly stand corrected.

Furthermore, if you deem me to be ignorant, I humbly accept your characterization rather than belabor this part of our dialogue this evening.

As for any perceived aggression, I am often curt and to the point in my writing style. If you were offended in any way by the words I used, I humbly apologize.

Nevertheless, it is my claim that neither aggression nor the emotion of anger was part of that entry, and that tone can be easily misunderstood in written communication.

That said, I'll simply apologize for any improper offense I may have caused.

I think the word "ignorant" isn't offensive in the context you used it here at all, no worries.

But do you have a link to the Liberty Statement at the end of their Caner investigation which includes the reference to "no further statement..." or some such?

I'm convinced I read something from Liberty like that at one point, but all the copies of their conclusion statement I can find don't include it, or my eyes are just missing it. This is NOT a "gotcha" question.

Yes...I googled, I went to SBC Today, AOMIN, etc. They all don't contain this phrasing (or again, my eyes are missing it). And no sign of anything on the liberty.edu site.

If Mr. Caner were permanently prohibited from directly addressing this matter by his employers, I'd be troubled. The man deserves to be allowed to speak for himself.

As for my questions on quantity, etc., we'll move along. It seems clear to me that enough broad contradictions between speaking sessions and the written record exist to make me disbelieve that they were accidental. So for me, quantity is a part of evaluating whether an event is an accident. Hence my pressing on the quantity matter.

eric,I will try to find something tomorrow. I have argued that keep him silent has been a bad thing but it was their call and that was the call they made. I think this is why Geisler released what he did and yet he has much more. This is why he made the statement relating as he did.

Gotta be with a family at the hospital in about 4 hours and just finished writing for the night/morning. Sleep now!

I was one of the first to publicly dispute MoKhan's false claim that Ergun Caner is a "fake ex-Muslim."

"Is Debbie Kaufman?"

DK's thesis is that Ergun was never a true believer in Islam - that he was just going through the motions. I think it is probably as hard to disprove her as it is for her prove her case, at this point.

I don't think that "true believer" is the right way to define Islam, because that is not how Islam defines itself.

It's rather amazing to me that those who argue that one cannot know a man is lying unless one can read that man's heart, can themselves quite easily discern the motivations of their (and their friends') critics.

Apparently, reading men's hearts is a talent some have and others lack.

Only slightly off topic, I recently listened to the following interview with EC:

http://www.backtobasicsradio.com/mp3s/pastorper-ergun.mp3

Speaking of Islamic eschatology, he stated, "They believe that by conquering or converting, that they will bring about the return of Allah."

The more I listen to him, the more obvious it becomes that EC knows very little about Islam. Ditto the ignorance he has shown in statements he's made on Calvinism and Presuppositional apologetics. And this from the head of "Global Apologetics" at a major seminary? Unbelievable.

You wrote: "anon,Share your name and I might discuss further. Continue to hide and I will from this point on ignore. Cowards who hide are not worth my time."

How about a coward who doesn't hide?

If you feel that replying to people who post pseudonymously is not worth your time then why are you reading TF's blog and responding in the com box?

As for me, I'm no one of importance, and my name would be of no help to you in establishing my identity. Unless we someday meet you will only know the quality of my character by the content of my comments. This is my first trip into the foray so you don't have much to go by. Think me a cowardly hiding villain if you like, but a man who puts forth so much effort in defense of Dr. Caner's best intentions would seem less quick to judge others of the worst.

~Sphnxh

TF, my apologies if my question was off topic or in some other way disrespectful or pointless.

How many times somebody does something is relevant in determining intent. Some years back a private school head-mistress, Jean Harris, pumped four bullets into diet doc Herman Tarnower. She pulled the trigger five times. She said that she went to Dr. Tarnower's residence to commit suicide, he tried to take the gun from her, and the gun went off by accident in the ensuing struggle. But the jury could not understand how a person could do something by accident five times. Bang! Oops. Bang! Oh, no! Bang! I didn't mean that. Bang! Gosh, I keep doing that! Bang! Oh, my. So the jury convicted her. Do you think she was rail-roaded?

I would rather have thought you were working off a list of short quotes from EC's sermons, but you say you have heard the sermons entire. How could a child who grew up in the Columbus OH area know no more about America than what he saw on Turkish TV? Is it even possible to pick up Turkish TV in Ohio? Even if he were a 'bubble-boy' or something and not allowed to leave the house, couldn't he at least look out the front window and thus know what he saw? And assuming he was healthy enough to leave the house (and the little boy in the mosque photos looks fine), couldn't he walk out the front door and play with the neighbor children and learn about America that way? How could the only information he had about 'you' (us) come from watching Turkish TV?

My point was that Ergun's own words that I quoted seemed to say that one should step up and speak up in light of conflict. This includes when one may lose their job. He gave no qualifications of "but don't speak up if your boss tells you not to." Rather, I take his words to be contrary to that.

It makes me wonder if he is taking his own advice.

What makes it hard to believe that these statements are misstatements is the context in which they were given. If you remove the alleged "misstatements" Ergun's narrative loses meaning and effect.

For example, take the three paragraphs below and correct the "misstatements" and see what you come up with.

"Until I came to this country, I saw thru television. It was whatever the Turkish government allowed into the country that passed through the censors, and secondly it was what was basically free, or didn't have to be translated. And so we got a lot of sports. And we got a lot of shows that, would uh, would, would be self explanatory. And that, that actually became this big window into, uh, uh, America for me. Uh, for instance, 'Andy Griffith' was, was, um, a show that we would get. I didn't understand it, but I thought all of America was sort of like Mayberry, and, um, it's true, I thought all of America was like Mayberry. It was in black and white and they sent it for free, and, and so I thought, and I, uh, moved to New York. And its not a real good comparison there, um.

"The second thing is was, was, American baseball. And, the, Cubs, WGN, would send Cubs games. And I learned American baseball by watching, you didn't have to translate it, you just you, you watch the game. You would hear, uh, apparently it turned out to be Harry Carey in the background, um, and that's how I thought American's talked, um, but that was, that was, you didn't have to translate it.

"The, the, third thing that I got, uh, which is a little embarrassing, but it's true. Was, uh, out of Atlanta, Georgia - and in Instanbul it played every two weeks for two hours, we would get a tape, of - uh, I guess it was a tape, they'd put it on, uh, Turkish television, there on Haberity, which was the station. Georgia, championship 'wrastling'. And nobody ever told me that it was fake, you understand. So you will hear me constantly throw out references to things that, that, from my youth, because, I thought Americans were the toughest people on the planet. Um, you got hit in the head with shoes, boots, and uh, chains, and I thought Rick Flair was the governor, and, and, and Dusty Rhoads was the uh, was the mayor and so that was my upbringing, um."

I think you've identified one of the issues. Let's say we change "before I came to the U.S." (or whatever) to "before I became an American citizen." Will the stories about having misconceptions make sense? I don't see how they would. So, I'm not sure that explanation is one that works.

I have no way of knowing whether LU has muzzled EC--but I do know that in the February "apology", issued when EC was president of the seminary and thus a part of the leadership of LU that EC said that he was not interested in this and would not participate [in any public discussion--my interpretative addition]. He has certainly done this.

We also have the statement from a student in an EC class who said that he spend a significant part of the class explaining how he was an innocent victim. This sounds as if he is speaking as he wishes because a muzzle would certainly fit during a class period.

I do know that the pastors from SBC Today have, from time to time, posted "hypotheticals" in an effort to justify EC's claims of having lived in Turkey. The statement that LU has muzzled him sounds to me like a continuation of this pattern. Tim G hypothesizes. He does not document or even state with certainty. He allows the reader to fill in the blanks and draw what I feel is an incorrect conclusion.

BruinEric, I think what you are thinking of is article in the Lynchburg News and Advance. In that article is the statement "LU spokesman Johnnie Moore responded to requests for further comment by saying, “Liberty will not be making any additional comments or giving any interviews at this time.” link here:http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/caner_removed_as_head_of_liberty_university_seminary/28135/

Tim G,

I live here (Lynchburg) and I've heard Caner's testimony in person several times. I remember quite well the first time I heard him ... I had just came back from a Iraq deployment. I thought he had a very powerful testimony. Too bad it was fake.

To my knowledge it wasn't recorded. I was at the down town Holiday Inn in 2004 ... a prayer breakfast.

He made it VERY clear that he was reared in Turkey and came to this country as a teen. That he lost "Everything" when he became a Christian and his "Family" disowned him.

He may of thought that he technically didn't lie but I remember well the picture he was painting and everyone in the room was like Wow!

I have Muslim friends and I told them about Ergun. They already knew about him. They knew he was pretending but it wasn't until years later when I figured it out and point blank asked them questions about Arabic, the hadith, etc. and even then they wouldn't ever say much negative about him other to say he can't speak the language and doesn't know what he is claiming. One of them told me how much damage to the Christian faith Ergun was doing. This from a person I've been trying to witness to for years.

They were very humble and kind in their comments as most Muslims are even though recent blog comments (your site and Dr. Giesler's) paint them as attacking Dr. Caner. Red Herring!

I can't use anything associated with Caner to even attempt to witness to Muslims I work with or still keep in contact with that I worked with in Iraq because when they learn anything about him (and it isn't hard with his books and youtube videos)they have him pegged within 5 minutes. Just go to Amazon and read the 1 star comments folks have left on his books. Those were usually left by folks that have a "real" clue what living in a "real" Muslim country is like. And pay attention to the dates on his book comments, notice how they were made before the 2006 debate that never happened.

Sweden is not a Muslim country by the way. That big building TRBC is in ... it use to be Ericsson, a Swedish cell phone R&D center (Engineers from around the world). I used to work there and travel to Sweden so I know exactly what the area he was born in is like (Stockholm).

Brother, how you (and others) deny that Caner hasn't made up his life story is beyond me. You must be in denial or not know many of the facts/issues.

When one does a Google search for that old aphorism "People convinced against their will hold the same opinions still" PL site shows up :)

Dr. Caner has been on my radar for a long time but it isn't so much his Whoppers that bother me (the ones done behind a pulpit do) but how he handles the Word of God.

1 Peter was written as a warning of false teachers outside the Body. 2nd Peter was a warning of issues that would come up from within and attack and divide believers. I'm not calling Dr. Caner a false teacher by any stretch of the imagination but he has weaved things with the Gospel presentation that were false. He also has a very biased view of Scripture and totally mis-handles parts of it.

Therefore this passage comes to mind in light of this situation:

ESV10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.Final Words 14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Sweden is not a Muslim country by the way. That big building TRBC is in ... it use to be Ericsson, a Swedish cell phone R&D center (Engineers from around the world). I used to work there and travel to Sweden so I know exactly what the area he was born in is like (Stockholm).

Brother, how you (and others) deny that Caner hasn't made up his life story is beyond me. You must be in denial or not know many of the facts/issues.

When one does a Google search for that old aphorism "People convinced against their will hold the same opinions still" PL site shows up :)

Dr. Caner has been on my radar for a long time but it isn't so much his Whoppers that bother me (the ones done behind a pulpit do) but how he handles the Word of God.

1 Peter was written as a warning of false teachers outside the Body. 2nd Peter was a warning of issues that would come up from within and attack and divide believers. I'm not calling Dr. Caner a false teacher by any stretch of the imagination but he has weaved things with the Gospel presentation that were false. He also has a very biased view of Scripture and totally mis-handles parts of it.

ESV 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.Final Words 14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Forgive me for the long rant, I couldn't hold back anymore. Oh and I should have just mentioned 2 3:10-17 ... I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about ;)

In light of that Scripture verse, I don't think there is any place for a pastor getting "Tazed" on stage, or looking and acting like a WWF wrestler or talking about what girls do with their hair brushes or the other totally absurd things he has said in campus church. He is not the role model I want my kids to have and I certainly do not want them learning Scripture from him. If I think they need any of this I'll send them Mark Driscoll's way. I'm sure my tone shows I'm a little stoked after reading this thread but I'd say on a scale of 1-10 I'm on a 2 compared to some of Ergun's deliveries from the pulpit. I guess I'm NOT "built for confrontation"

Oh, and go to Liberty Student news and read what all the "muslims & calvinists" that go to Liberty are saying:http://www.libertystudentnews.com/

In your opinion is the Liberty Student News "arrogant and lacking in spiritual authority"?

In your opinion is the Liberty Student News guilty of "attacking" Ergun Caner?

In your opinion is the Liberty Student News guilty of "destroying the character of others" [Caner] "for the simple reason of some crazy theological agenda"?

To me the worst thing about the kinds of rationalizations and defenses offered up by Caner's erstwhile defenders - such as Tim G. in this thread - is that it acts as a preventative to genuine Biblical repentance and restoration.

After all, the scriptures are not silent about the believer's need for contrition and repentance.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9

By tirelessly arguing that Caner has nothing to repent of, because he has merely "misspoken" and not lied [despite the mountain of documented, verifiable evidence to the contrary] his friends so-called do him an unloving disservice.

To call a sinning brother to genuine Biblical repentance and to restore him to a right relationship with God and men is among the most loving and gracious acts a believer can undertake.

In fact the church is charged with the ministry of reconciliation and restoration.

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. - Galatians 6:1

Yet in the case of Ergun Mehmet Caner - having been ensnared in a web of deceit of his own weaving - his counselors are manifestly worthless, offering up public platitudes and plausible excuses instead of lovingly taking up the Biblical responsibility to call him to godly repentance, and to restore him in a spirit of humility and gentleness.

This my brothers is devilish wickedness, and represents a grave disservice to the personal witness of Ergun Caner, to the reputation of LU, not to mention the harm done to the witness and reputation of the Body of Christ in the eyes of a watching and unbelieving world.

I'm not sure if others have brought this to your attention, but something goofy is going on with your blog.

Recently your blog loads really slooooooow, and sometimes when posting comments I get an Error 504 "White Screen of Death". If I click back and try to re-post the comment, it will sometimes reload, and other times fail back to the Error 504 screen.

As this occurs, unbeknownst to the hapless commenter, the blog is posting and re-posting the comment that appears to be failing, but in reality is getting double, triple, or quadruple posted!

Please understand that I'm not laying this problem at your feet, but the best I can tell I first noticed the slow loading and other bizarre user issues when you loaded your Facebook followers widget.

Anyway, something on your blog has changed its loading and response timing characteristics, and not for the better.

CoremDeo said ... "To me the worst thing about the kinds of rationalizations and defenses offered up by Caner's erstwhile defenders - such as Tim G. in this thread - is that it acts as a preventative to genuine Biblical repentance and restoration."

I agree. I know people that have talked directly to Ergun since the Liberty decision was made. The take away I had is that he is still telling people he was innocent and that he is being attacked and thinks that apologizing to Jerry Jr. in private is enough.

I'm really sick of people pointing back to the Feb. statement as a blanket apology for all this when it was specific to dealing with the claim of debating Shabir and a few other things ... but more importantly it was FULL of justification or excuses.

Try having a fight with your wife and then saying I'm sorry BUT and see how that goes .... she will not accept it. This statement that everyone keeps talking about is no less than the same kind of thing .... I'm sorry for this BUT ...

Tim G, you are a Pastor. You shepherd a flock. Proverbs 25:2 says:ESV 2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

This is something you should seek out. If you (like some people I know) are going directly to Ergun and asking questions you should stop. Prisons are full of those that maintain their innocense. You HAVE to look at the evidence and it is plain to anyone who will look at it.

All any of us (I'm speaking for true Bible believing Christians here) are wanting is for Caner to come to a true state of repentance (stop this I'm innocent and being attacked junk). He also needs to address the churches, students etc.

I'm not going to go into his personal life but lets just say that it doesn't fit with that of a Theology professor (or pastor) which makes this way worse than the Mike Warnke episode (I remember that all too well as I was a teen and he came to our church twice). Plus, Ergun has had a partner in all this who knew the truth.

As I ponder what you have been posting, my mind goes to Titus 1, especially the qualifications for leadership and consider it strange this standard is being ignored and not applied by Thomas Road and LU when it comes to Dr. Caner.

Also, these Words speak to the issues at hand, as well:::>

Ecc 6:10Whatever has come to be has already been named, and it is known what man is, and that he is not able to dispute with one stronger than he.Ecc 6:11The more words, the more vanity, and what is the advantage to man?Ecc 6:12For who knows what is good for man while he lives the few days of his vain life, which he passes like a shadow? For who can tell man what will be after him under the sun?

Yes, not only his wife, but his brothers, other family members, and friends who know him well. Perhaps not his children because they only know what he told them, and how consistent or inconsistent that has been over the years.

Somebody knows the truth (apart from what formal documents indicate) and perhaps someday we'll hear it from Caner himself. At this point, though, I'm not hopeful that that will happen anytime soon, if ever. It requires repentance, and I have, to date, not seen any evidence that that is even on the table as a possibility.

Any further doubts about the Biblical teaching that God is the One to grant repentance when it is required should be readily assuaged in the midst of the Caner scandal.

"So, the next time you are challenged by someone who opposes the truth, someone who calls you a bigot or worse (maybe even to your face), how will you respond? When you are insulted and mocked for your beliefs, what card will you play? Try playing the grace card. And let God change hearts and minds."

This is the final paragraph in Scott Howell's blog post today (http://fromlaw2grace.com/)

It does not have anything to do with the Caner issue--but it fits rather well.

1. Do any who read this know of anyone who has changed his/her mind on the EC issue (in either direction)?

2. Do any who read this know of anyone who has carefully read the documentation of the issue and looked/listened to EC talks to check the details and then come down on "EC's side?"

I'm trying to understand how people reason on this. Any help would be appreciated.

"Yes, not only his wife, but his brothers, other family members, and friends who know him well."

And through it all we are expected to believe that no one who was close to him admonished him? What happened to faithful are the wounds of a friend? Are we to believe that no one cared about him? That is even sicker than sick and means that, yes, despite all Tim G.'s rants, there had to be a conspiracy afoot. Unless, all these people who knew him intimately are just hapless dopes.

Bennett Willis wrote, "I'm trying to understand how people reason on this."

Here's a sign of progress. One of EC's publishers is asking for more openness:

"Harvest House Publishers, which published his The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, co-authored with Liberty University's Ed Hindson, stated: 'We are saddened by the controversy that has risen as a result of the self-contradictory statements made by Ergun Caner over the years. And, we are concerned that the allegations surrounding his statements have not yet been adequately addressed by him, and we are hopeful that he will personally respond to them soon.'"

By your standard, the allegation of perjury is self-refuting. By your standard, you can't rightly accuse someone of perjury unless you can read his mind. For he can't bear false witness unless he intends to bear false witness, and only God can discern his intentions.

Therefore, you just convicted yourself by your own rules of evidence."

Tim also accused many others of bearing false witness. Thanks for the common sense answer.

But I think what many are missing is that Tim (and others) are basically redefining sin for a select group.

when referring to C.D.'s words, a couple of verse references came to mind:

From 2 John, these verses:

2Jn:6And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.2Jn:7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.2Jn:8Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.2Jn:9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

And from 3 John, verse 11:

3Jn:11Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.

Notice in both references, having God, knowing Him and seeing Him is paramount.

When pondering the mountain of evidence contradictory to representations of factual evidence provided one comes away with a sense that Dr. Caner doesn't particularly have a grasp of this sort of Divine representation of Truth. This idea then rims the sense ringing the bell to the thought, "just how much of God" does Dr. Geisler have an interest in if he is so bold to come out strongly to the defense of Dr. Caner and not the Gospel's Faith?

Copyright Notice - (C) 2006-2011 TurretinFan

This blog tries to comply with international standards of "fair use" and "fair dealing" in its use of copied material. If you feel that a use of your material is "unfair" contact the blog owner: contact information is available on the blog owner's profile.Contrariwise, those same international standards permit you to make "fair use" and "fair dealing" with the material presented here.More